You are making a SERIOUS error if you allow the .Church gtld to be controlled by LifeChurch. They do not represent all of the churches in the world; and, even if they claim to, the feeling would not be reciprocated.

I am deeply offended by the submission of their application and respectfully ask you to consider denying it.

First, it is a slap in the face of legitimate organized religion. In fact, there are thousands of different religious affiliations that each believe they have a claim to the generic word "church", many of which have been around for thousands of years. For the record, LifeChurch has been around on the net only since 2006 making them younger than a 7 year old boy in 1st grade. To award them (or Donuts for that matter) the tld would be unjust.

Will each of the following be equally represented: Adventist, Baptist, Catholic, Christian, Church of Christ, Episcopal, Church of the Nazarene, Independent Fundamentalist, Islam, Jewish, Jehovah's Witness, Lutheran, Mennonite, Metaphysical, Methodist, Mormon, Non-Denominational, Orthodox, Pentecostal, Protestant, Presbyterian, Scientology, Zion Coptics? Whoops forgot the Church of Reverand Sun Myung Moon with its seven million members! I find it highly unlikely LifeChurch will be able to accommodate them all especially since the beliefs of many of the aforementioned denominations diametrically oppose one another and many are not in line with the beliefs promoted by LifeChurch.

And who is going to be the lucky one designated to distinguish between a legitimate religion and a cult which wants to pray to the God of Marijuana (Zion Coptic Church)?

One group says Jesus was the son of God, another says he WAS God, another says he was just a mortal man, one says he was a messiah, another says he was a priestly messenger and still another says that Allah or someone totally different is the true Host of Hosts. One says he had a Holy Mother, one says he had a regular mother. One says he has a father who was God, one says his father was just a man, one says he has no Father at all. One says he was the Messiah while others point out that his family themselves did not believe in him or pray to him whatsoever. Bad idea.

Also, how can you possibly expect LifeChurch to fairly share the tld with religions with which they disagree? To ICANN, I suspect they will promise to "love thy neighbor as thyself", but after they get control of the .Church tld, do you really think the Zion Coptics or the Moonies will ever have a shot at the tld? I ask you to please think about that in the light in which the expansion was intended.

Did you know that many religions have completely different versions of the Ten Commandments? How's that gonna work without terribly offending millions throughout the world? If something as basic as the 10 Commandments can't be agreed upon, how can the gtld be operated fairly?

A quick Google search for the word "Church" will yield over 1.26 BILLION results. To allow a generic word such as that without carefully considering the full future ramifications is careless, thoughtless and unwise. To proceed with this application will quickly undermine the very effort for which this expansion concept was intended. I urge you not to approve the .Church application as presented by EITHER of the two current applicants.